par Morin, Jean-Frédéric ;Oberthur, Sebastian
Référence International Studies Review, 15, 4, page (576-578)
Publication Publié, 2013
Article révisé par les pairs
Résumé : The myth that expert knowledge should precede politics can be broken down into three related and equally flawed assumptions. The first is ontological and opposes knowledge and politics as two antithetical spheres. According to this dichotomy, expert knowledge is perceived as being ideally consensual, neutral, and universal, while politics is deemed essentially conflictual, partial, and contextual. The second assumption is normative and argues for a strict division of labor, according to which experts should supply and policymakers consume knowledge. The third assumption is analytic and results from the tension between the previous two. It explains governance failures by the tendency of policymakers to follow their political interests rather than knowledge-based solutions. On the face of it, GEG provides an easy case for the linear model since relevant environmental knowledge is often scientific knowledge, which is supposed to be the quintessential of consensual, neutral, and universal knowledge. Yet, a close look at GEG reveals that scientific evidence is not a pre-condition for political action.